JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate
The Entrance Wound in the Throat, the Front Shirt Slits, and Tie Knot Nick
Mitch Todd:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on August 05, 2025, 03:03:40 PM ---Yes, you did. Dr. Carrico told the WC that the throat wound was above the tie:
Dulles: Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. Carrico: Just about where your tie would be.
Dulles: Where did it enter?
Dr. Carrico: It entered?
Dulles: Yes.
Dr. Carrico: At the time we did not know --
Dulles: I see.
Dr. Carrico: The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Dulles: I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. Carrico: Yes, sir. (3 H 361-362)
When Carrico spoke with Harold Weisberg in 1975, he confirmed that the throat wound was above the collar; he was “definite on this” (Weisberg, Never Again, 2007 edition, p. 241). Weisberg continued:
When I asked him if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was
definite in saying “No.” I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his
own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole.
He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole
was above the collar. . . . (Never Again, p. 242)
Carrico also told Weisberg that the nurses used scalpels to remove the president’s shirt and tie because they were, understandably, in a big hurry, and that it was “likely” that the nurses made the slits and the nick in the tie, adding, “I saw neither the nick in the tie nor the cuts in the shirt before the nurses started cutting” (Weisberg, Post Mortem, pp. 375-376; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/New%20York%20Times/Item%2093.pdf, p. 4; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Matrix_for_Assassination/SC-wBAAAQBAJ?q=&gbpv=1#f=true, pp. 95-96; http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Book Images/Never Again - Draft/Never Again Draft.pdf, p. 14)
Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt, in his book Reasonable Doubt, notes that one of the nurses confirmed that nurses made the shirt slits when they hurriedly cut away JFK’s tie and shirt (p. 60).
So is it just a whopping coincidence that Jones and Goldstrich's descriptions of the wound's location match exactly what Dr. Carrico told the WC and then Harold Weisberg about the wound's location?
Goldstrich didn't "just sort of pop out of nowhere years and years later." You haven't watched the Paramount documentary, have you? Nobody but a diehard SBT believer would believe that Goldstrich fabricated his account. By the way, when Goldstrich was interviewed again in 2023, he said he is "almost certain" the throat wound was an entrance wound, and he noted that JFK had a large wound in the back of his head:
"I am now almost certain that it is an entrance wound. This should have been obvious
to me sooner because the wound at the back of the head was too large to ever be
considered an entrance wound." (https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/107504)
--- End quote ---
MG: Yes, you did. Dr. Carrico told the WC that the throat wound was above the tie:
No, he didn't. And let me show you what he actually said, since you totally missed it.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe, as specifically as you can then, the neck wounds which you heretofore mentioned briefly?
Dr. CARRICO - There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size, located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adams apple.
Mr. DULLES - Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. CARRICO - Just about where your tie would be.
Mr. DULLES - Where did it enter?
Dr. CARRICO - It entered?
Mr. DULLES - Yes.
Dr. CARRICO - At the time we did not know
Mr. DULLES - I see.
Dr. CARRICO - The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Mr. DULLES - I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. CARRICO - Yes, sir; just where the tie--
In Carrico's own words, the wounds was "located in the lower third of the neck" "just about where your tie would be." His use of "where your/the tie" puts the wound below the top of the collar, ipso facto. And "the lower third of the neck" would also located it under the top of the collar on any human being not named "Giraffe." Note how well these statements matches up to "we opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck." If you go by what Carrico actually says, in his own words, the wound is most definitely below the top of the collar. You, on the other hand, want to rely on something Dulles says about Carrico's hand instead. That's not a very smart way to deal with it.
As to your channeling the ghost of Harold Weisberg:
HW: When I asked him if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying “No.”
Of course Carrico wouldn't have. His concern was for the patient, not the patient's clothing! Why on earth would Weisberg or you or anyone else expect him to in the first place? Weisberg says as much in Never Again.
HW: I asked if he recalled Dulles’s question and his own pointing to above his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole. He does remember this, and he does remember confirming that the hole was above the collar.
What a vague and roundabout way of dealing with the problem! You'd think that Weisberg would have directly asked Carrico about the exact location of the wound, and then quoted Carrico's response in one of his writings. I mean, let's say that you are Weisberg. And you are interviewing Carrico about the throat wound. One of the first questions you are going to ask is "where was the throat wound? Was it above or below the collar?" So why don't we hear about that at all? why does Weisberg resort to the vague, indirect, and quoteless reference to Carrico's WC testimony? I'm certain that Weisberg did ask that question, but Carrico's answer wasn't what Weisberg needed to hear. So Weisberg went roundabout, having Carrico "confirm" his testimony. But note that Weisberg doesn't actually quote what Carrico said.
MG: Carrico also told Weisberg that the nurses used scalpels to remove the president’s shirt and tie because they were, understandably, in a big hurry, and that it was “likely” that the nurses made the slits and the nick in the tie, adding
Reading through Weisberg's comments on the subject I don't get where Carrico actually says they used scalpels. "{Carrico} told me that the President's shirt and tie were cut off in 'the usual emergency procedures,' he demonstrated it using his own tie slashing with an imaginary scalpel." But the only person who seems to be imagining a scalpel here is Weisberg. In fact, all of the "scalpel" talk appears to comes from Weisberg, and no one else. I can't find anyone but Weisberg saying they used scalpels to cut clothing off, unless they are referencing Weisberg. He seems to be the ultimate source of all this scalpel talk.
As for "the big hurry," it would have been faster to use bandage scissors than scalpels. Scalpels are carefully packaged and stored in such a way as to preserve the blade's sharp edge, maintain their sterility, and prevent anyone from being accidentally injured by the things while they are being transported, stored, and readied for action. Getting one out of its packaging and ready to go is not trivial and takes time, especially if you prefer not to maim yourself. On the other hand, almost every nurse involved in clinical activity in a hospital will be carrying bandage scissors, trauma shears, or both, in their pockets. They are also readily available in examination rooms, etc, as they do no need to be sterile, and are fairly safe handle by design. And they are designed specifically to cut through bandages and clothing from a human body without causing injuries in the process. Scalpels are designed specifically to cause injuries in patients. They are not forgiving to misuse, and cutting clothing is not a use they are designed for.
MG: So is it just a whopping coincidence that Jones and Goldstrich's descriptions of the wound's location match exactly what Dr. Carrico told the WC and then Harold Weisberg about the wound's location?
The location that CTs want to put the throat wound has been public knowledge for a long time. CTs aren't shy about pelting witnesses with leading questions, and enough of them over the years will start becoming memory contaminants. Loftus, et al, demonstrated this decades ago. Or Consider the case of the "McClelland drawing." It was originally drawn by a medical illustrator under the commission of Tink Thompson based on comments made by McClelland. Over time, McClelland began to say that he was responsible for having it created. And eventually, he actually started to say that he'd drawn it. He wasn't trying to claim credit for something that he didn't do, but inadvertently came under the influence of the mass of literature and discussion about the assassination. John Connally, in his autobiography, said that most of what he "remembered" about 11/22/63 wasn't actually his own memories, but things he heard from others, watched on TV, or read in the years after the event.
Again, if you go by Jones' and Perry's testimony to the WC in 1964, Jones could not have seen the wound before the shirt and tie had been cut away from that area.
MG: Goldstrich didn't "just sort of pop out of nowhere years and years later."
The earliest reference to him as a JFKA witness dates to about 2015, 52 years after the assassination. And, again, you could also show us independent confirmation that Goldstritch was ever in TR1 that day. The WC asked the 11/22/63 staffers who was in the room there and involved with the efforts to treat JFK. Who the noted Goldstritch's presence?
Joffrey van de Wiel:
There is no reason to guess at the location of the anterior neck wound. The autopsy protocol (CE 387) clearly states on page 3:
Situated in the low anterior neck at approximately the level of the third and fourth tracheal rings is a 6.5 cm. long transverse wound with widely gaping irregular edges.
This image might be helpful:
Michael T. Griffith:
In their 1976 book Cover-Up: The Governmental Conspiracy to Conceal the Facts About the Public Execution of John Kennedy, Larry Harris and Gary Shaw did a good job of recounting the initial diagnosis of the throat wound as an entrance wound, pointing out that at first there was no doubt the wound was an entry wound, that the Parkland doctors had extensive experience with gunshot wounds (unlike Humes and Boswell), and that the Parkland doctors only began to change their stories about the wound after they were visited by Secret Service agents:
Initially, there was no question that Kennedy had received
a bullet in his throat. This wound was below the larynx (Adam’s
apple), and was described by all that saw it as an entrance wound.
Newspaper accounts that weekend and the weeks that followed
bear this out. The New York Times' Tom Wicker spoke with
doctors the day of the assassination:
“. . . Dr. Malcolm Perry, an attending surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark,
chief of neurosurgery at Parkland Hospital, gave more details. Mr.
Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam's apple,
they said. This wound had the appearance of a bullet's entry.”
Four days later the same newspaper printed that,
“. . . Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one
(bullet) struck him about the necktie knot. ‘It ranged downward
in his chest and did not exit,’ the surgeon said.”
Clark's statement is corroborated by an interview on November 28,
published in the New York Herald-Tribune. Dr. Robert Shaw of
the Parkland Hospital staff told reporter Martin Steadman that the
bullet which entered the front of the President's throat and “coursed
downward into his lung. . . ."
Life magazine, an early accessory to the cover-up, tried to explain
how a wound in the front of the President could have been caused by
a lone assassin firing from the rear:
“But the 8mm film (Zapruder) shows the President turning his body
far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat
is exposed— toward the sniper's nest -—just before he clutches it.”
The editors of Life knew that was a lie, for the Zapruder film
clearly shows JFK facing forward and slightly to his right when he is
shot; at no time does he look to the rear.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch carried a story by columnist Richard
Dudman, who wrote:
“The strangest circumstance of the shooting, in this reporter’s
opinion, is the position of the throat wound, thought to have been
caused by the first of two shots that struck Mr. Kennedy. Surgeons
who attended him at Parkland Hospital described it as an entrance
wound. Dr. McClelland told the Post-Dispatch: ‘It certainly did look
like an entrance wound.’ He explained that a bullet from a low
velocity rifle like the one thought to have been used characteristically
makes a small entrance wound, sets up shock waves inside the body
and tears a big opening when it passes out the other side. Dr.
McClelland [said] . . . 'we are familiar with wounds. . . . We see them
every day—-sometimes several a day. This did appear to be an
entrance wound.’”
Kennedy’s clothing. Shirt and coat show bullet holes nearly “six inches
below" where the Commission said the bullet entered. Slits in tie and
collar were made by a scalpel and not by an exiting bullet. . . .
It is interesting to note that for some four weeks after the assassination,
the Parkland doctors continued to state publicly that they thought the
throat wound was one of entry. Then, after the official version of the
shooting (one gunman firing from the rear) had been decided, two
Secret Service agents visited those physicians who had attended Kennedy.
One by one, each doctor began to announce that upon reflection, he had
decided the wound was in fact one of exit. One might guess that like
Richard Randolph Carr, the Parkland doctors were told what they had
observed. (pp. 64-65)
Shaw and Harris also noted that even though the doctors had publicly reversed their position on the throat wound, when they testified before the WC, they made it a point to observe that the wound at least looked like an entry wound, and they explained the damage that Dr. Perry observed behind the wound that led him to conclude the bullet had ranged downward into the chest after entering the throat.
Tom Graves:
--- Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on September 03, 2025, 12:01:31 AM ---In their 1976 book Cover-Up: The Governmental Conspiracy to Conceal the Facts About the Public Execution of John Kennedy, Larry Harris and Gary Shaw did a good job of recounting the initial diagnosis of the throat wound as an entrance wound, pointing out that at first there was no doubt the wound was an entry wound, that the Parkland doctors had extensive experience with gunshot wounds (unlike Humes and Boswell), and that the Parkland doctors only began to change their stories about the wound after they were visited by Secret Service agents:
Initially, there was no question that Kennedy had received
a bullet in his throat. This wound was below the larynx (Adam’s
apple), and was described by all that saw it as an entrance wound.
Newspaper accounts that weekend and the weeks that followed
bear this out. The New York Times' Tom Wicker spoke with
doctors the day of the assassination:
“. . . Dr. Malcolm Perry, an attending surgeon, and Dr. Kemp Clark,
chief of neurosurgery at Parkland Hospital, gave more details. Mr.
Kennedy was hit by a bullet in the throat, just below the Adam's apple,
they said. This wound had the appearance of a bullet's entry.”
Four days later the same newspaper printed that,
“. . . Dr. Kemp Clark, who pronounced Mr. Kennedy dead, said one
(bullet) struck him about the necktie knot. ‘It ranged downward
in his chest and did not exit,’ the surgeon said.”
Clark's statement is corroborated by an interview on November 28,
published in the New York Herald-Tribune. Dr. Robert Shaw of
the Parkland Hospital staff told reporter Martin Steadman that the
bullet which entered the front of the President's throat and “coursed
downward into his lung. . . ."
Life magazine, an early accessory to the cover-up, tried to explain
how a wound in the front of the President could have been caused by
a lone assassin firing from the rear:
“But the 8mm film (Zapruder) shows the President turning his body
far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat
is exposed— toward the sniper's nest -—just before he clutches it.”
The editors of Life knew that was a lie, for the Zapruder film
clearly shows JFK facing forward and slightly to his right when he is
shot; at no time does he look to the rear.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch carried a story by columnist Richard
Dudman, who wrote:
“The strangest circumstance of the shooting, in this reporter’s
opinion, is the position of the throat wound, thought to have been
caused by the first of two shots that struck Mr. Kennedy. Surgeons
who attended him at Parkland Hospital described it as an entrance
wound. Dr. McClelland told the Post-Dispatch: ‘It certainly did look
like an entrance wound.’ He explained that a bullet from a low
velocity rifle like the one thought to have been used characteristically
makes a small entrance wound, sets up shock waves inside the body
and tears a big opening when it passes out the other side. Dr.
McClelland [said] . . . 'we are familiar with wounds. . . . We see them
every day—-sometimes several a day. This did appear to be an
entrance wound.’”
Kennedy’s clothing. Shirt and coat show bullet holes nearly “six inches
below" where the Commission said the bullet entered. Slits in tie and
collar were made by a scalpel and not by an exiting bullet. . . .
It is interesting to note that for some four weeks after the assassination,
the Parkland doctors continued to state publicly that they thought the
throat wound was one of entry. Then, after the official version of the
shooting (one gunman firing from the rear) had been decided, two
Secret Service agents visited those physicians who had attended Kennedy.
One by one, each doctor began to announce that upon reflection, he had
decided the wound was in fact one of exit. One might guess that like
Richard Randolph Carr, the Parkland doctors were told what they had
observed. (pp. 64-65)
Shaw and Harris also noted that even though the doctors had publicly reversed their position on the throat wound, when they testified before the WC, they made it a point to observe that the wound at least looked like an entry wound, and they explained the damage that Dr. Perry observed behind the wound that led him to conclude the bullet had ranged downward into the chest after entering the throat.
--- End quote ---
Dear Comrade Griffith,
Please freshen my memory:
Regarding the "slits and/or nicks" on JFK's shirt and tie, were the fibers on their edges pointed outwards or inwards?
-- Tom
Lance Payette:
--- Quote from: Tom Graves on September 03, 2025, 01:01:34 AM ---Dear Comrade Griffith,
Please freshen my memory:
Regarding the "slits and/or nicks" on JFK's shirt and tie, were the fibers on their edges pointed outwards or inwards?
-- Tom
--- End quote ---
Well, the FBI said they were pointed outwards - but then they would say that, wouldn't they?
The big hang-up for me, as Joffrey kind of suggests above, is that with the Griffith/Varnell approach we have (1) a back entry wound so shallow that the bullet falls out; (2) a throat entry wound for which there is no exit; (3) the fibers on the shirt indicating the back wound is one of entry and the throat wound is one of exit; and (4) the two supposed entry wounds and the holes in the clothing "just happening" to line up so closely that umpteen medical and ballistic experts have opined that one is an entry wound and the other an exit. How fantastically unlikely is that? Unlikely enough that Cliff Varnell is forced to resort to a CIA-issued melting ice bullet for the throat wound. I have a feeling William of Ockham would look askance at the Griffith/Varnell approach, which would seem to make the explanation vastly more complicated than the evidence necessitates.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version